I think Western psychology tries to educate people about how to be a secular atheist (upper) middle class person. — baker

That can happen but that would be bad psychology and a generalisation. Some psychologists are religious (Jesuits; rabbis; Anglicans; Buddhists). I would be more inclined to say that psychologists work to assist people to identify their own strengths and interests and develop an achievable plan for a happier or better functioning life (based on how the client identifies this).

Are emotions really irrational? — Shawn

Not sure credible people would argue this this. But some emotional reactions to events/things are irrational. Wife beating, assaulting shop keepers because a product is sold out, weeping all the time when the word father is mentioned.... those kinds of things. Or just feeling sad or angry every hour of every day.

So I put the question for debate is Stoicism a better guide to living than Christianity and should it replace the latter as a set of values to live by? — Ross Campbell

You don't need either.

Tom, I guess that is the problem with language. Understanding. I try and keep it simple. “Spirituality’ for me is reaching a place where you know your own ‘true self`’. I think in particular in the modern world we can be so removed from our true nature. I also like the stoic view and the expression there are only two things an individual can control. “How you think”, and “how you act.” It may take a lifetime but finding your ‘true self’ and ways of thinking and acting can lead you there. I believe that this ‘true self’ everyone has and the search for finding it within yourself is spiritual. Many of course find religion is their path. — David S

David S You can afford to be more ambitious. I have worked in the field of addiction and mental illness for decades, with a focus on suicide risk assessment and prevention. So I know the significance of language and understand many people's fractured sense of self and need to find meaning. A pet hate of mine is inadequate words like 'spirituality' and 'true nature'. I don't want to be unnecessarily quarrelsome but they are not all that helpful except as bookstore categories. Unless you can put some substantial flesh on their bones...

Also what evidence do you have that in the modern world we are more removed from our true natures than in the past? It could be argued, with good reason, that people are much more likely in this current comparatively wealthy time of education and free time (and bookshops and on line) to find themselves. This kind of searching has certainly been a hallmark of the middle class West for the past 50 years.

Spirituality therefore rather than religion is a positive for everyone in terms of finding an ‘inner peace’,that is very close perhaps I suggest to what the original idea behind the origins of gods, the deep understanding of what life is. — David S

Hmmm... but what is 'spirituality'? It's not a word that resonates with me at all and can mean anything you want. And I am not sure that the notion of 'a deep understanding of what life is' is anything more than a phrase.

It's all waves man... with discrete blobs of energy surfing them... shit... my cat's dead...

Perhaps you are talking about something else. For me, emotions are a reaction to something. It is that something that needs to be understood and unpacked.

Young people sometimes need to be taught about boundaries of appropriate behavior (esp anger) but this is separate matter.

Psychologists are a diverse group, good and bad, a wide range of backgrounds, interests, and focuses, representing a vast range of schools and theoretical positions. Often a patient's inability to manage negative emotions is seen an indicator of something else. If this issue is addressed, the assumption may be made that the emotions may be better integrated.

I am not sure that psychologists educate people about emotions as such but rather they educate patients about why particular events might trigger certain emotional reactions and how to better manage this. The idea is to get to a person's process or thoughts before the emotional reaction kicks in. Bear in mind that what is required will depend a lot on whether the issues spring from trauma, a mood disorder, a personality disorder, or a situational crisis.

One general observation I would make is that we lack the ability to distinguish religion from philosophical spirituality. Because of the dogmatic attitude of Christianity, everything 'religious' gets tarred with the same brush. — Wayfarer

An acute and lucid point.

Rather than taking the worst excesses of literalist fundamentalist religion,listen to the experiences and presentations of eloquent mystics,shamans and meditators. — Zenny

As per Wayfarer's point; but we all share fundamentalism as a common problem. These guys often view philosophical spirituality as atheism. The doctrinaire literalist Christians seek to change legislation and turn back the clock, with an eye towards establishing a theocracy that would threaten freedoms. There's a reason atheists have to keep coming back to this - they may be low hanging fruit when it comes to sophisticated reasoning, but they can have disproportionate power over education and social policy.

Goodness TC. I'm sorry. You seem angry. I read 180's response as an experience based account of how professed theists often appear to demonstrate a lack of belief and some extravagant irreligious practices. It seems to be more than hypocrisy. That aside, we obviously have a different views about the nature of belief. I'll give this some further thought.

So maybe consider playing pretend to sharpen your critical thinking perspective skills. :) — Tiberiusmoon

Fake it until you make it.

And once you can fake critical thinking you've really made it.

I think that I know people who claim to be Christians or of other religious persuasion, but don't seem to have much appreciated for anything beyond the mundane. I also think a lot of people adopt religious beliefs but don't really reflect on them that much at all. — Jack Cummins

Totally agree. As I have said elsewhere, much religion functions as social club membership, belonging/social contact - and in my view many theists don't really take the idea of God seriously or even believe in a God.

In my experience, it is quite common for atheists to have a reverence for life and an intense relationship with the numinous (the arts, nature, reflection) and the 'spiritual' (however that looks for folk), while the religious folk are often deeply committed to acquisitive materialism and superficial ideas.

I've often posited to myself that theists may make better atheists and atheists may make better theists.

You and Baker have agreed that not many religious followers actually believe in God. I think my criticism is reasonable. — T Clark

OK. I suspect it just like, politics, really. So many people identify with a political party, without having any knowledge about policies or a true belief.

Where one can look into Buddhism and see that it takes a surreal amount of awareness about one's emotions, desires, and the source of dukkha to overcome suffering by negating or professing a detachment from emotions. Tom Storm, would you agree? — Shawn

Can't talk to Buddhism, I only have a basic knowledge of it and can't claim to have taken enough interest in it.

Outside of spiritual systems, I think if people have to work hard at detachment, it isn't detachment. I think it might be better to recognize emotions and name them. Awareness of how things impact upon us is a really important skill. Then it's how much power you give these emotions in influencing behavior and actions that is the key issue.

This is laughable. Do you know any religious people? I spent some time in the southern USA a few years ago. — T Clark

Not laughable - geography. I live in Australia and know well many religious people. A close friend is a Catholic priest. It describes the scenario here for many, but I never said 'all'.

Nevertheless Southern fundamentalism aside, I suspect my description of religion as primarily a social group is largely accurate elsewhere. I have certainly heard Matt Dillahunty argue this - he's a former Southern Baptist and now atheist educator in Texas.

people are scared of psychologism — Zenny

Psychologism is to psychology what scientism is to science. Discuss

People are cunning — baker

Cunning implies deceitful, doesn't it? Could they not just be smart and complex?

When I wrote that 'Religions are social clubs...' etc - I was taking a particular line that seems to apply to many, but not all folk. I have friends who are sincere believers (with strong mystical tendencies) who are unusually helpful to others and not materialistic.

Thank you for providing this. That's a big theme! How did you come upon these ideas?

I'm not sure I understand properly the nature of the split between scientific technology and religion. Are you arguing that science is driven by crass material gain and disrespect for nature and this would not have happened if religion had not opposed it?

The spread of democracy and the rule of law (which amounts to "power to the most powerful/rich") result in a decline of informal, silent understandings of what is "proper behavior". Where in the past, people would show consideration for others and expect it in return, they can now say "If you don't like something about me, sue me, see if you can do it / if it's worth it to you".

When lawsuits and calling the police were generally not realistic options, people would make an effort to get along with others. Now, with democracy and the rule of law, they don't have to. — baker

This is what you see? Bleak, huh?

I can't see what you see.

You provide no evidence just an assertion based on your own biases about status and power and their negative effects on behaviour.

You're not my therapist, nor anyone else's here. — baker

Thank goodness for that.

You're passionate about this, but I don't think I properly understand your point. I'm not trying to be a dick, and I am interested in these kinds of arguments, but do you think you could summarise your main argument in some dot points?

Forgive me if this is wrong. You seem to be saying that science has been strategically deprived of spirituality (you use the word religion).

As a consequence of this, science is robbed of its capacity to integrate our understanding of facts and our understanding of... god?

How would science work better in your view?

Sure.

In modern times, under democracy and the rule of law, emotional intelligence is becoming redundant or counterproductive. I already sketched out why. — baker

Maybe where you are. If emotional intelligence is said to mean a person's awareness of other people's emotional reactions and needs and their own emotions, then the people I see are more often overly polite and mindful of not offending anyone or being seen as rude. More mindful of others than they were in the 1970's 1980's.

How we would find evidence to establish a definitive case worldwide?

Provided one has the money and the political power to do so. — baker

You seem preoccupied by status and the abuse of power. Is this personality, experience or what you are reading?

The matter is already thoroughly addressed in the concept of executive functions. — baker

What issue are you responding too here.

PM sent

I think the important thing is not the labels so much as being self aware, without going overboard. Being able to self-regulate is an important skill for most people and can really help in achieving goals (although I know that language doesn't work for everyone). The stoics influenced Albert Ellis who created RET, which morphed into CBT and DBT. It's great stuff.

I don’t know why this question has gotten 13 pages of mileage.
Asking if atheists hope there is no god is like asking if atheists like vanilla ice cream. They may or may not, as like their taste in ice cream whether or not they hope god doesn’t exist will vary with each individual.
Hoping whether god exists or not isn’t definitive of atheism, what’s definitive of atheism is whether or not you believe there is a god and that’s it.
Some atheists might like the idea of god bit just are not convinced there actually is one. Other atheists are anti-theists and reject that there being a god is a good thing.

Just asking this question displays an ignorance of what atheism is. — DingoJones

Nice work - agree. A lot of people who have been socialized into religions seem unable to even hear the definition in order to grasp it and seem willfully culpable of misrepresenting atheism wherever possible in order to trash the idea with some interpretive smear or another. Of course many atheists do similar things to theism, so I guess it's par for the course...

The situation is hopeless... we must take the next step. (apologies to Pablo Casals.)

What about mindfulness or CBT? Seemingly, if there is an emotional quotient, then CBT seems to score very high on coefficients related to its measure... Ya? — Shawn

No one is saying people don't have emotional experiences, Shawn. The question is how best to describe this and how best to map people's responses (for those who appreciate such schemata). CBT certainly works to help people develop tools and strategies for managing their emotional regulation - a not inconsiderable concern for people dealing with trauma and addiction, an area I have worked in for 30 plus years.

Sure, just not for long. — baker

:joke:

I'll probably just tell him that that's how you could interpret Thus Spoke Zarathustra — thewonder

Have tired to read TSZ again this past fortnight. I don't know how people can read this, it is so dull and arch.

I'm sure this has been discussed before but is it actually possible to be a nihilist other than in a posturing sense? Can any person be totally without values and transcend even psychopathy's amoral outlook? If you say 'I am a nihilist', presumably you are affirming a value system and ruling out the fact you are a nihilist... or am I just paradox struck at the moment?

For one, I doubt that many who profess to believe in such an external powerful entity actually believe in it. I know many monotheists, but there isn't a single one for which I could confidently say that they actually believe in God. — baker

I have often thought this too, but for different reasons. Religions are social clubs and come with a set of 'off the rack' beliefs, so you don't need to work at independent thought. God 'belief' is the price you pay for admittance and because the idea is ineffable, you need not engage with it.

Rehabilitating the unconscionable?

I am kind of fascinated by what paradoxes like this tell us about human conceptualization and descriptive categories. I lack sufficient Wittgensteinian acumen, if that's what's needed, to unravel it properly.

I’d be interested to see if I’m barking up the wrong tree he — Wayfarer

Is this the same as:

Russell's paradox
Russell's paradox is one of the most famous of the logical or set-theoretical paradoxes. Also known as the Russell-Zermelo paradox, the paradox arises within naïve set theory by considering the set of all sets that are not members of themselves.

Did you like the essay?

Edit: this might be interesting: SIX SIGNS OF SCIENTISM — Banno

It's a wonderful piece. Succinct and lucid.

When plainly there are excellent evolutionary reasons why poetry should have developed..... — Wayfarer

Poetry used to get people laid, right? Ask Byron... If Homer was real I suspect he never went to bed alone...

Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to identify and manage one’s own emotions, as well as the emotions of others. Emotional intelligence is generally said to include a few skills: namely emotional awareness, or the ability to identify and name one’s own emotions; the ability to harness those emotions and apply them to tasks like thinking and problem solving; and the ability to manage emotions, which includes both regulating one’s own emotions when necessary and helping others to do the same. — Emotional Intelligence

Clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson (whatever you make think of Lobster Man) says EQ is a myth and maintains that the kinds of behaviour reported above can be explained by where people sit on neuroticism and extraversion. Presumably those high in these two traits are unable to 'read' others and reflect upon the role emotion plays in their own and other's behaviour.

I think this kind of thing requires a fair bit of knowledge and scrupulous respect for the research to properly understand. But pop-psychology is spectacularly attractive to most of us.

I work with two clinical psychologists who also think EQ is dodgy.